Rethinking Barbie (the doll) and her positive impact

[Anonymous]

I think the newer body-positive Barbie dolls are so ugly. I know they're good for self esteem of young girls and whatnot, but I still think they're ugly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we feel good about Ken being an after thought.

Because Barbie’s life didn’t revolve around him. She had an awesome life that he could join, but she was autonomous. She already had a career, the nice house with a pool, and a convertible on her own. Ken was there for fun trips to the beach, but it was Barbie’s world.

Okay but why is that important.

Why should anybody being a 2nd thought be a good thing?

You’re being willfully obtuse. Barbie was a toy that broke the “housewife/mother-in-training” mold for girls and taught them to think about what they wanted to do with their lives outside the home. Ken wasn’t a second thought because Barbie was mean to him or he was “less than;” he was a second thought because you could play Barbie without him. He was an accessory.

I think women think taking the worst part of misogyny and reversing it is empowering and I think it’s wrong.

Why not say Grace was an afterthought or accessory or a second thought?

Or Midge or Nikki…?

I don’t know who they are, but if the people you’ve named are Barbie’s friends, then yes, they’re accessories and supporting characters as well. It’s a Barbie-centered universe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we feel good about Ken being an after thought.

Because Barbie’s life didn’t revolve around him. She had an awesome life that he could join, but she was autonomous. She already had a career, the nice house with a pool, and a convertible on her own. Ken was there for fun trips to the beach, but it was Barbie’s world.

Okay but why is that important.

Why should anybody being a 2nd thought be a good thing?

You’re being willfully obtuse. Barbie was a toy that broke the “housewife/mother-in-training” mold for girls and taught them to think about what they wanted to do with their lives outside the home. Ken wasn’t a second thought because Barbie was mean to him or he was “less than;” he was a second thought because you could play Barbie without him. He was an accessory.

I think women think taking the worst part of misogyny and reversing it is empowering and I think it’s wrong.

Why not say Grace was an afterthought or accessory or a second thought?

Or Midge or Nikki…?

I don’t know who they are, but if the people you’ve named are Barbie’s friends, then yes, they’re accessories and supporting characters as well. It’s a Barbie-centered universe.

I never said they weren’t what I said is why are you guys falling for this marketing ploy that “Ken is an accessory”?

Why is that the centerpiece of their marketing? And why do you care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes a doll is just a doll.

Barbie was a very fun toy to play with. I loved her outfits and I had the cutest Barbie house and furniture. It really wasn’t more meaningful than that.

Agreed. I loved Barbie. I never thought I needed to look like her.

Why does everybody experience have to do the same as yours?

We could ask you the same question. You can choose to find joy in playing with a toy or you can choose to see everything as an issue or a personal affront.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, as a short, stocky girl, I really didn't appreciate Barbie-encouraged body norms. I starved myself, but ultimately, I was still short and broad, even when bony, and Barbieness was unattainable.

I don't understand this. What is it about a plastic doll that makes you think looking like her is a good idea or attainable? Look at some of the women who come somewhat close. They look ridiculous! Boob jobs, lip fillers, cheek fillers and god knows what else. Nobody looks like that naturally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we feel good about Ken being an after thought.

Because Barbie’s life didn’t revolve around him. She had an awesome life that he could join, but she was autonomous. She already had a career, the nice house with a pool, and a convertible on her own. Ken was there for fun trips to the beach, but it was Barbie’s world.

Okay but why is that important.

Why should anybody being a 2nd thought be a good thing?

You’re being willfully obtuse. Barbie was a toy that broke the “housewife/mother-in-training” mold for girls and taught them to think about what they wanted to do with their lives outside the home. Ken wasn’t a second thought because Barbie was mean to him or he was “less than;” he was a second thought because you could play Barbie without him. He was an accessory.

I think women think taking the worst part of misogyny and reversing it is empowering and I think it’s wrong.

Why not say Grace was an afterthought or accessory or a second thought?

Or Midge or Nikki…?

I don’t know who they are, but if the people you’ve named are Barbie’s friends, then yes, they’re accessories and supporting characters as well. It’s a Barbie-centered universe.

So why is Ken being paid the same as Barbie, if Ken is an “accessory “?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes a doll is just a doll.

Barbie was a very fun toy to play with. I loved her outfits and I had the cutest Barbie house and furniture. It really wasn’t more meaningful than that.

Agreed. I loved Barbie. I never thought I needed to look like her.

Why does everybody experience have to do the same as yours?

We could ask you the same question. You can choose to find joy in playing with a toy or you can choose to see everything as an issue or a personal affront.

You thinking everybody has to be like you is the definition of narcissism.

Also if it’s “just a doll” why have all the other dolls, why make her a “do your” or “astronaut “?

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one here who thinks people on this thread have gotten weirdly tribal about Barbie? There's a major mass-marketing push for this film, yes... but if it fails to inspire us to embrace Barbie, we're out of the circle of trust?

One of the few things I worry about more than unrealistic body standards for women is groupthink. I really hate groupthink. Why do so many of you NEED us to change our minds about Barbie. Because the movie and its marketing tell us we should?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here who thinks people on this thread have gotten weirdly tribal about Barbie? There's a major mass-marketing push for this film, yes... but if it fails to inspire us to embrace Barbie, we're out of the circle of trust?

One of the few things I worry about more than unrealistic body standards for women is groupthink. I really hate groupthink. Why do so many of you NEED us to change our minds about Barbie. Because the movie and its marketing tell us we should?

It's the social media era, PP. People tend to become unnecessarily tribal and aggressive on the internet.

No need to change your views. I loathe Barbie, the toy, but fully intend to enjoy Barbie, the movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here who thinks people on this thread have gotten weirdly tribal about Barbie? There's a major mass-marketing push for this film, yes... but if it fails to inspire us to embrace Barbie, we're out of the circle of trust?

One of the few things I worry about more than unrealistic body standards for women is groupthink. I really hate groupthink. Why do so many of you NEED us to change our minds about Barbie. Because the movie and its marketing tell us we should?

?

Liberal women have revolted against Barbie and pink and gendered toys for decades. Isn’t that group think?

Buying your kid a Barbie or Disney princess toy has been taboo for many, many years.

Isn’t that groupthink?

The left admittedly succeeded in blacklisting such toys. And it’s all based on weird talking points. There are legit reasons why Barbie made a positive impact and for whatever reason nobody seems open to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here who thinks people on this thread have gotten weirdly tribal about Barbie? There's a major mass-marketing push for this film, yes... but if it fails to inspire us to embrace Barbie, we're out of the circle of trust?

One of the few things I worry about more than unrealistic body standards for women is groupthink. I really hate groupthink. Why do so many of you NEED us to change our minds about Barbie. Because the movie and its marketing tell us we should?

?

Liberal women have revolted against Barbie and pink and gendered toys for decades. Isn’t that group think?

Buying your kid a Barbie or Disney princess toy has been taboo for many, many years.

Isn’t that groupthink?

The left admittedly succeeded in blacklisting such toys. And it’s all based on weird talking points. There are legit reasons why Barbie made a positive impact and for whatever reason nobody seems open to it.

Where are Barbies blacklisted exactly? I know zero kids of liberal/left parents who don't have Barbies and Disney toys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here who thinks people on this thread have gotten weirdly tribal about Barbie? There's a major mass-marketing push for this film, yes... but if it fails to inspire us to embrace Barbie, we're out of the circle of trust?

One of the few things I worry about more than unrealistic body standards for women is groupthink. I really hate groupthink. Why do so many of you NEED us to change our minds about Barbie. Because the movie and its marketing tell us we should?

It's the social media era, PP. People tend to become unnecessarily tribal and aggressive on the internet.

No need to change your views. I loathe Barbie, the toy, but fully intend to enjoy Barbie, the movie.

Well thanks. The sociological question is interesting and I wish we could have a good-faith chat about it without the weird aggression toward posters who disagree.

I might eventually stream the movie if DH and I can't agree on anything else, but this won't be a theater film for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here who thinks people on this thread have gotten weirdly tribal about Barbie? There's a major mass-marketing push for this film, yes... but if it fails to inspire us to embrace Barbie, we're out of the circle of trust?

One of the few things I worry about more than unrealistic body standards for women is groupthink. I really hate groupthink. Why do so many of you NEED us to change our minds about Barbie. Because the movie and its marketing tell us we should?

?

Liberal women have revolted against Barbie and pink and gendered toys for decades. Isn’t that group think?

Buying your kid a Barbie or Disney princess toy has been taboo for many, many years.

Isn’t that groupthink?

The left admittedly succeeded in blacklisting such toys. And it’s all based on weird talking points. There are legit reasons why Barbie made a positive impact and for whatever reason nobody seems open to it.

Oookay. Way to prove my point about weird tribalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here who thinks people on this thread have gotten weirdly tribal about Barbie? There's a major mass-marketing push for this film, yes... but if it fails to inspire us to embrace Barbie, we're out of the circle of trust?

One of the few things I worry about more than unrealistic body standards for women is groupthink. I really hate groupthink. Why do so many of you NEED us to change our minds about Barbie. Because the movie and its marketing tell us we should?

It's the social media era, PP. People tend to become unnecessarily tribal and aggressive on the internet.

No need to change your views. I loathe Barbie, the toy, but fully intend to enjoy Barbie, the movie.

Well thanks. The sociological question is interesting and I wish we could have a good-faith chat about it without the weird aggression toward posters who disagree.

I might eventually stream the movie if DH and I can't agree on anything else, but this won't be a theater film for me.

I saw the movie last night and I think it’s only enjoyable watching it as a group in a theater. People are wearing pink, some are really dressing up. It’s fun to laugh together.

I bet the movie will seem dumb streamed at home.

The sets and costumes on the big screen were amazing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one here who thinks people on this thread have gotten weirdly tribal about Barbie? There's a major mass-marketing push for this film, yes... but if it fails to inspire us to embrace Barbie, we're out of the circle of trust?

One of the few things I worry about more than unrealistic body standards for women is groupthink. I really hate groupthink. Why do so many of you NEED us to change our minds about Barbie. Because the movie and its marketing tell us we should?

It's the social media era, PP. People tend to become unnecessarily tribal and aggressive on the internet.

No need to change your views. I loathe Barbie, the toy, but fully intend to enjoy Barbie, the movie.

Well thanks. The sociological question is interesting and I wish we could have a good-faith chat about it without the weird aggression toward posters who disagree.

I might eventually stream the movie if DH and I can't agree on anything else, but this won't be a theater film for me.

I saw the movie last night and I think it’s only enjoyable watching it as a group in a theater. People are wearing pink, some are really dressing up. It’s fun to laugh together.

I bet the movie will seem dumb streamed at home.

The sets and costumes on the big screen were amazing!

Yeah, I think that's a good bet.